How things look through an Oregonian's eyes

February 27, 2015

One of the reasons I keep on subscribing to the Salem Statesman Journal newspaper, a Gannett USA Today clone that is failing our town, is that reading its editorials often gets my heart pumping faster with irritation.

I'm not sure if this substitutes for genuine aerobic exercise, but, hey, it might be health-promoting.

Even the irritation could be positive, since it leads me to mentally deconstruct the reasons I typically find the editorial page editor's (Dick Hughes) opinion pieces lacking in logic. Not as challenging as doing the New York Times crossword puzzle, but intellectually enjoyable.

As much as I detest this editorial, I'll give Hughes credit for coming up with an original argument. Rarely, if ever, do people concerned about the environment argue that building the pipeline is good for our one and only Earth.

Of course, it isn't.

But Hughes (who I assume wrote the piece) somehow considers that stopping our planet from experiencing disastrous global warming which threatens the viability of civilization as we know it is less important than possibly preventing some oil train spills.

When comparing the safety and pollution records of pipelines versus trains, pipelines win. Oil trains are not only inherently more dangerous, but locomotives are huge polluters.

Thus even though leading climate scientists say that it is imperative to leave most of the world's fossil fuels in the ground to prevent harmful warming beyond 2 degrees centigrade -- especially the Canadian tar sands that would be the source of the pipeline's oil -- our local newspaper believes otherwise.

Vast amounts of oil in the Middle East, coal in the US, Australia and China and many other fossil fuel reserves will have to be left in the ground to prevent dangerous climate change, according to the first analysis to identify which existing reserves cannot be burned.

...The study’s conclusion on the exploitation of Canada’s oil sands is blunt, finding production must fall to “negligible” levels after 2020 if the 2C scenario is to be fulfilled.

That's the biggest nonsensical UGH! in Hughes' editorial. Like so many other Statesman Journal editorials, it is impossible to follow the logic and evidence that leads to opinionated conclusions.

Why? Because the newspaper starts with a conclusion and conjures up ridiculous reasons to support the pre-determined end point.

A secondary ugh! is the absurd reasoning about "induced demand," a generally recognized planning principle. Building more roads and bridges typically leads to more congestion, not less, because people drive more.

Conversely, Oregon's pioneering land use system has shown that when urban growth boundaries constrain sprawl, more people bike, walk, and use mass transit rather than cars. More compact cities make this possible.

So Hughes is just making stuff up when he writes:

It's like fighting the Columbia and Salem river crossing projects to reduce society's dependence on vehicles. The traffic congestion doesn't go away. Rather, commercial and personal vehicles produce more pollution while idling in traffic.

He really needs to get out more. Even in virtual reality.

Do some Googling of Portland's transportation trends, Dick. Learn how commuting by bicycle and mass transit has increased after the city prioritized alternative modes of transportation.

Though I didn't enjoy this editorial, I did like many of the reader comments left on the piece. Including mine, of course. I'll share some below.---------------------NO 3rd Bridge

"It’s like fighting the Columbia and Salem river crossing projects to reduce society’s dependence on vehicles. The traffic congestion doesn’t go away. Rather, commercial and personal vehicles produce more pollution while idling in traffic."

This is a mischaracterization of why most of us are fighting the 3rd Bridge.

We are fighting it because it DOESN'T solve the congestion problem in downtown Salem to build a 3/4 mile long bridge through an earthquake liquefaction zone a mile north of downtown. Downtown commuters won't go miles out of their way to avoid the traffic.

We are fighting because, including debt service, the bridge project would end up costing nearly $1 billion over 20 years and requiring tolling the Marion and Center Street bridges, a local gas tax, a vehicle registration surcharge and a property tax increase in Salem.

We are fighting because the idiotic fixation on a 3rd bridge by a handful of elected officials is distracting us from maintaining the two bridges we already have and working with ODOT to retrofit them so they won't collapse in the next Cascadia megaquake which could come at any time.

When is the SJ going to wise up and realize that the 3rd Bridge is a terrible idea that is destined to fail? The only question is how much longer we will waste millions in discretionary regional transportation funds to plan something that will never materialize.---------------------

In addition to Mayflower Arkansas, think Kalamazoo and Yellowstone Rivers; think BP Gulf spill; think Climate Change storms such as Katrina and Sandy; think exploding gas tanks on trains such as in West Virginia and Lac Megantic, Canada.

Think China with their air pollution - so bad they are working to switch to alternative methods to gas/oil as quickly as possible. Meanwhile, they're happy to burn the fossil fuels we provide, which pollutes our water as it leaves the ground, and our air as it returns after they burn it.

Think about your tax dollar being spent to study the 3rd bridge, a bridge that is not being built to withstand the expected mega-thrust earthquake. It'll collapse along with the two existing bridges which are not scheduled for seismic upgrading for another 40 years.

Think about the studies which show that while population is increasing, fewer vehicles are on the road. Ask yourself why billionaires who own these gigantic companies need to make one penny more knowing their companies are killing us, and our planet.

Unfortunately, not enough people know the facts, or they'd be driving less already. They'd be riding bicycles and they'd be begging for better bus service, They'd be promoting "leave it in the ground".

Which is, the Earth is warming at a dangerously rapid rate; humans are primarily responsible for this due to greenhouse gas emissions; something needs to be done about global warming to preserve the habitability of the planet for human civilization as we know it.

If you do accept this, editorializing in favor of the KXL pipeline is absurd. Leaving most fossil fuels in the ground is essential if a disastrous degree of global warming is to be averted.

Thus either the Statesman Journal has an indefensible position on global warming -- we accept this is happening, but humanity shouldn't do anything about it -- or climate change deniers inhabit the SJ editorial board.

Please tell us which is true.

Does the Statesman Journal deny the reality of global warming, or do you deny the necessity of dealing with it? One or the other seemingly is true, since you have come out in favor of burning as much of the Earth's remaining in-ground fossil fuels as possible, which will lead to disastrous effects.

February 25, 2015

Salem Community Vision -- I'm a member of the steering committee -- has come up with some goals for the Salem City Council to consider.

We believe that if our local elected officials made these goals a priority, Salem's citizens would benefit economically, culturally, environmentally, quality-of-life'ly and healthily.

Who knows?

Birds might also sing more tunefully; flowers would bloom more colorfully; the sun would shine daily, even when it is raining. That's how great these goals are!

They've been shared with the Mayor, City Manager, city councilors, and other City officials, who are going to have a 2015-17 goal-setting work session on March 16. An abbreviated version was published in the Statesman Journal as a letter to the editor.

I've added some links in the titles of the goals for anyone who wants more info about them. The image below comes from Salem Community Vision's project page, which includes Downtown Streetscaping.

In advance of the City Council’s upcoming goal-setting work session, Salem Community Vision would like to suggest that these goals be top priorities for the City of Salem in the coming years.

(1) Fix and improve the existing Willamette bridges. It is vital that the two bridges we already have be seismically retrofitted as soon as possible, before the Big One earthquake hits. This, along with improvements to the bridgeheads that would improve traffic flow, can be done for much less money than a third bridge would cost.

(2) Streetscape downtown. Salem’s urban core needs to become much more pedestrian and bike-friendly. Plans already exist for streetscaping the Historic District by adding attractive plantings and other features, while lessening the negative impact of vehicular traffic on visitor enjoyment of the area.

(3) Revise the tree ordinance. Revisions to Salem’s tree ordinance have been drafted by a group of concerned citizens. These appear to be marked improvements over the current ordinance, which has allowed downtown trees to be removed unnecessarily — leading to justified protests and controversies.

(4) Create a Sustainability Commission. Salem’s reputation as a “sustainable community” lags behind that of other neighboring cities such as Portland, Corvallis, and Eugene. This harms our ability to attract people and businesses who are concerned with environmental and quality of life issues.

(5) Re-prioritize transportation planning/funding. With fewer people driving, and more choosing mass transit, biking, and walking, Salem needs to rethink how and where it spends limited transportation dollars. For example, a neighborhood-based effort to create “bike boulevards” throughout Salem should be a priority.

(6) Encourage incubator business start-ups. Empty storefronts are a drag on Salem. They give both visitors and residents a negative impression of our community. The City needs to do more to support creative small business start-ups which are a key to revitalizing not only downtown, but other lagging areas of Salem.

I encourage you to email City officials and tell them how you feel about these goals. Or suggest other ones.

February 23, 2015

Today I attended a 1000 Friends of Oregon meeting at the capitol about land use issues in the current 2015 session of the state legislature.

For me, the most interesting discussion involved Measure 91, the initiative voters approved last November that legalizes recreational marijuana.

As reported in a blog post about an OLCC listening tour meeting in Salem this month, people are talking about Measure 91 leading to legal pot becoming this state's "Napa Valley" when it comes to tourism.

(Of course, if California legalizes marijuana soon, as is expected, the real Napa Valley and points north could become their own cannabis-focused Napa Valley.)

State Representative Ken Helm, a land use attorney, spoke about Measure 91 during part of the 1000 Friends meeting. Among various land use issues surrounding the legalization of marijuana (zoning, for example), he brought up something that hadn't occurred to me before.

Marijuana now is a legitimate agricultural crop. A high value crop. In fact, a very high-value crop.

I realize that growing marijuana takes special equipment and skills.

But if I'm reading my scribbled notes from the meeting correctly, Helm said that in some parts of Oregon a single marijuana plant can grow to 18 feet tall and produce 8-10 pounds of pot. Since the retail price of marijuana buds is about $200 per ounce in medical marijuana dispensaries, a lot of cash can be generated by just a few plants.

Currently Oregon's land use laws restrict building a single-family home on EFU (exclusive farm use) land. I'm not sure if this 2008 Stoehl Rives legal overview, "Dwellings in the vineyard," is still up to date, but it seems to be, pretty much. The piece talks about vineyards, but is applicable to farm uses generally.

Ever thought about building your dream home out in the middle of a vineyard in wine county? Curious about buying vineyard property, but worried that you may not be able to build the desired family home? Or what if you run across a nice piece of property, and it has a dilapidated old farmhouse that's just not suited to your taste?

These are common questions people may face when buying vineyard property in Oregon. When purchasing property for vineyard development or a planted vineyard, there are many factors to take into account before signing on the dotted line, but a key, although often overlooked issue, is whether applicable state and county land use regulations allow the construction and year-round use of a permanent residence.

...To site a dwelling under the gross income test, a property owner is obligated to demonstrate that a vineyard on high-value farmland has produced at least $80,000 in annual gross income over the past two years, or alternatively $80,000 in annual gross income over three of the past five years. If the vineyard is on non-high-value farmland, then the hurdle is somewhat lower, and the property owner only needs to demonstrate that the vineyard has produced at least $40,000 over the past two years, or three of the past five years.

Rep. Helm told us that there aren't plans to change this gross income threshold for farming generally -- just for marijuana grows. The reason relates to the small amount of land it takes to generate $80,000 from growing marijuana.

Someone couid have just a small parcel of EFU land, a few acres or less, and the current income threshold would allow building a home on farmland if the property was devoted to growing marijuana.

Since Oregon's land use laws are intended to restrict "McMansions" sprouting up on irreplaceable farmland, Helm said the income threshold for marijuana growing may be raised to $160,000. Someone at the meeting noted that even this may not be high enough, given the high cash value of a small number of marijuana plants.

However, Helm also pointed out that southern Oregon, in particular, already has a thriving medical marijuana industry.

Growers there are devoted to providing quality cannabis for patients who need it, which often is low in THC and high in CBD (making it better for pain relief, without marked psychoactive effects). Thus he said that the state legislature needs to balance the desirability of making some changes to Oregon's land use laws, with not discouraging the growth of a new beneficial high-value agricultural crop -- marijuana.

There's got to be some middle ground here.

I can see why people should be prevented from making an end-run around land use laws by buying a few acres of farmland, setting up a marijuana grow site with a small number of plants that generates $80,000 of gross income every few years, and then getting the right to put a house on the land.

However, legitimate marijuana growers shouldn't be penalized just because their crop generates a lot more income per acre than farmland planted in other ways does.

It'll be interesting to see how the Oregon legislature handles this issue, given that most legislators favor both marijuana legalization and protecting farmland from residential development.

We enjoyed viewing the Oscars with a bunch of other people. During commercial breaks Carlee and Tom keep everybody entertained with Academy Award trivia questions and other stuff. And the really big TV screen was cool.

Laurel and I decided to dress up. In our own fashion. We didn't have anything far-out to wear, so Laurel went with a glittery top and I dragged my rarely-worn black sports coat, tie, and slacks out of a closet.

Given how informal Salem is, I figured that this would get us at least a modicum of attention at the Northern Lights "red carpet." However, unfortunately our arrival at the theatre parking lot coincided with another couple's.

And they had a lot more going for them, fashion-wise.

The woman had on some striking very-high-heeled shoes; the guy had on bluish shoes, along with matching dark glasses frames and a like-colored shirt. I was reduced to standing aside and snapping some photos with my iPhone.

However, when I checked the Statesman Journal photos of the event, I saw that a photo of me did indeed appear. Sadly, it was just of me from the side, admiring the guy's shoes.

(Note to the Statesman Journal legal department: I realize that your photos are copyrighted, but I feel like I should be able to share a screenshot of what my computer sees when it visits your public web site. A bit of Googling revealed that putting a screenshot on a blog is indeed generally "fair use.")

So I was reduced to handing my iPhone to my wife and having her take a photo of my unusually well-dressed self. When I looked at it, though, I felt like it didn't really capture the essence of my Red Carpet persona.

After all, I'd spent a whole ten minutes getting ready for this event. I also had picked out a pair of designer dark glasses that my daughter had given me (she is the sales manager for a high-end LA-area eyewear company).

Given that my humility was already in serious question after I'd posted this tweet during the Northern Lights Oscar event, I decided that I might as well take some selfies of myself at home before my outfit went back into the closet.

A close-up shot did seem to capture a vague (OK, very vague) George Clooney'esque vibe. But I still wasn't satisfied.

It was only after I found another camera angle in front of one of the animal art pieces which grace our home that I felt like my Red Carpet vibe had been adequately captured.

Sadly, this was long after, and nowhere near, Salem's Oscar event.

It did make me feel good, though, that the cow appeared to be paying rapt attention to me, all dressed-up in my black tie outfit. Now I have a vague (OK, very vague) sense of what it is like to walk the actual Academy Awards red carpet.---------------

Update: in a comment, someone wondered where a photo of my wife, Laurel is. Well, she doesn't like to have her photo taken as much as I do, though she should -- since she is a lot more attractive than I am.

To make amends, here's a "joint selfie" photo I took recently when I was told the New York Post needed one of both of us for the story they did on hippie retirement communities (which was largely based on one of my blog posts).

Not having a decent recent photo of the two of us, and being given a short deadline by the reporter, I took one inside our house that actually didn't turn out too bad. Mysterious looking, given our woodsy home interior, with light coming in from a hidden window.

February 21, 2015

This morning I went to the monthly meeting of the Woodburn Democrats group, getting both a free breakfast and the ability to take part in some interesting progressive talk.

I'd been asked to say a few words about the Kitzhaber/Hayes scandal that led to our Governor's resignation, then lead a discussion. (Not that I, or hardly anybody else, is capable of leading Dems, well known for their like herding cats proclivity.)

Representative Betty Komp started off the meeting with some remarks about how the 2015 Oregon legislative session is going.

It'll be great to have the low carbon fuel bill passed before the legislature tackles the big transportation bill. I've heard that Republicans want to hold the low carbon bill hostage in order to get their votes on the transportation bill. But if the low carbon fuel bill is already passed, this will take away the potential of it being horse-traded away during the usual end-of-session negotiating.

If I'd read today's newspaper before going to the meeting, I might not have said what I did. Because when I got home, I saw this in a story about our new governor, Kate Brown.

Bills that come to her desk for signing will be treated the same way, Brown said. The only one she would commit Friday to signing is the "Motor Voter" bill that she championed early during the legislative session.

She said she supports the concept behind the low-carbon fuel standard bill that has generated controversy this year, but she did not say whether she would sign it into law.

l'm not sure what "treated the same way" refers to. It might be a reference earlier in the story to Brown deciding whether to keep Kitzhaber's staff members on a case-by-case basis.

Now, maybe it doesn't mean much -- Brown saying she hasn't decided whether to sign into law the low carbon fuel standard that's much beloved by Oregon environmentalists. But it might, as this would fit into the Horse Trading Hypothesis that I'd hoped was off the table.

He points out the disconnect between Dems in the state legislature (1) backing an effort to fight global warming through the low carbon fuel standard, and (2) pushing a transportation bill that likely would include money for new roads, freeways, bridges, and other autocentric stuff.

It’s an article of Democratic Party faith in Oregon that climate change and global warming threatens our planet with devastation within this century.

This prevailing Democratic view follows the science that the human burning of fossil fuels is causing climate change and global warming, and that somewhere around one-third of this problem is coming from motor vehicles that burn fossil fuel in internal combustion engines on our highways.

It’s also an article of Democratic Party faith in Oregon that our highway infrastructure needs to be built out at breakneck speed in order to deal with growing congestion on the state’s highways, so that our economy can thrive.

The annual Oregon Business Summit, held earlier this year, attended by thousands of businessmen, and capturing our leading politicians of both parties to speak there, recently proclaimed this congestion as the state’s number one issue.

The Democratic Party in Oregon seems led by the nose by unions who also love that argument, including particularly the building trades and the AFL-CIO, who are dying for these local union highway construction jobs that used to be so numerous but have virtually disappeared as people drive less and drive vehicles that use less gas per mile.

No one in the Democratic Party is trying to publicly reconcile these two inconveniently opposing points of view.

In fact, politicians of all stripes in Oregon would prefer that there be no public reconciliation. If there were reconciliation, the politicians would all be negligent by not acting to prevent the devastation to the planet that will eventually be caused by man-made climate change.

That means rejecting the false arguments of the business and labor lobbies that we must somehow build our way out of job-stifling congestion with many large highway expansion projects.

Nicely said, Mr. Buel.

At the Woodburn Democrats meeting I said that if the low carbon fuel standard bill is a fait accompli by the time the transportation bill is voted on, Republicans will be faced with a choice:

Either sign on to the transportation bill (which almost certainly will require raising the state gas tax) or give up on getting some infrastructure projects for the rural parts of the state that they care about most.

I'm enough of a political realist to recognize that some new highway projects will need to be part of the transportation bill.

But these should be a lesser priority than maintaining the roads and bridges we already have, many of which are falling apart and/or are not earthquake-proof. Further, mass transit, bicycle lanes, and other forms of non-vehicular transportation should get a good share of the money in a 2015 transportation bill.

1000 Friends is advocating for a transportation funding package that prioritizes safety, maintenance over new roads and highways, and adequately funds transit, pedestrian and bicycle improvements. These investments promote active transportation and decrease emissions, which in turn minimize the detrimental health impacts of single occupancy vehicle use and promote efficient land use patterns. Not budgeting for highway expansions would relieve future additional taxpayer maintenance burdens.

It'd be crazy for the state legislature to cancel out the environmental and economic benefit of a low carbon fuel standard bill by passing a transportation bill that fails to recognize the urgent necessity of moving away from outmoded "build more roads" thinking.

February 19, 2015

The title of this blog post comes from a terrific TEDx talk by urban planner Ed McMahon. Near the end of his talk he says:

The justification for preserving the special places of Florida is not just about the economy of this state. It's about the psychology of this state as well. Ladies and gentlemen, you can grow without destroying the things that people love.

Hearing that, I thought of all the things that the City of Salem has allowed to be destroyed in the name of illusory economic progress. Illusory, because McMahon makes clear that a city can't prosper unless it offers a sense of place that is unique.

The more any community … looks just like every other community, the less reason there is to go there. On the other hand, the more a community enhances its distinctiveness that's natural, architectural, cultural, artistic … the more people want to go there.

Recently Salem has lost an ancient urban forest and historic Howard Hall, because City officials thought a Salem Hospital parking lot was more important. Five beautiful, large, healthy downtown trees were cut down because the U.S. Bank president wanted them removed for no good reason. Plans for a billion dollar unneeded Third Bridge continue that would uglify the riverfront and demolish dozens of homes and businesses.

Salem's Mayor, City Manager, city councilors, and other top officials need to take the message of McMahon's talk to heart, before this town sinks further into economic and cultural mediocrity. Salem can't keep on destroying the things people love if it wants to be a place that people love.

I've set up this video of "Where am I? The Power of Uniqueness" so it starts at the 8:05 minute mark, about halfway through. I found the end of McMahon's talk the most relevant to us here in Salem, Oregon. But you really should watch the whole thing.

Here's a transcript of some things McMahon said in this part of his talk that particularly resonated with me.

The surrounding environment was the single most important factor affecting the market value of a home. Another thing that affects value and sense of place is the presence or absence of historic buildings and neighborhoods.-----------------------Let's fly out to Seattle and let's go to the Pike Place Farmers Market. That's the number one destination in the state of Washington.

It gets visited by millions of people a year, and yet about 35 years ago there were some people on the Seattle City Council who seriously proposed tearing it down. Why? They said, well we need more downtown parking. Like parking for what? You can have all the parking in the world. If there's nothing to do, no one's ever going to want to go there.-----------------------Why is it do you think that people feel a sense of loss like losing a loved one or a friend when a grove of trees is cut down, a historic building demolished, a scenic view obliterated?

It's not because we can't plant new trees or build new buildings. Its because I believe our sense of identity and well being is tied in a very profound way to special buildings and places and views. These places are invested with rich symbolic importance that contributes to our identity and well-being in a way no less fundamental than religion or language or culture.

How many times have you heard someone say, dismissively, "Oh, that's just aesthetics," or, defensively, "It's not just aesthetics" to signal that a "real" issue is involved, usually economics.

Hogwash, says Urban Land Institute scholar Ed McMahon. When it comes to communities, aesthetics and design are economics, because they are critical to a unique place. McMahon makes his case in a fascinating, 17-minute TED talk that should be watched by every tourism board in America.

"The image of a community is fundamentally important to its economic well being," says McMahon. "Decisions such as where to invest, where to work, where to retire, and where to vacation are all made based on what a community looks like."

In today's economy, the quality of place matters the most. "In a world where capital is footloose, if you can't differentiate [your town] from any other, you have no competitive advantage," he says.

Tourism depends on the image of the community and the quality of place. "Tourism is the biggest industry in the world. It is the first, second, or third largest industry in every single American state," he says. Tourism is about visiting places that are different, unusual, or unique.

In other words, if the primary image of a community is a large commercial strip with big box stores and franchise businesses that are available every place else in America, why would anybody go there on vacation?

"The more any community … looks just like every other community, the less reason there is to go there. On the other hand, the more a community enhances its distinctiveness that's natural, architectural, cultural, artistic … the more people want to go there because that's exactly what tourism is."

The San Antonio River Walk, pictured above, is the most visited place in Texas. It is the basis for the city's multibillion dollar tourism industry. "Yet at one point the city thought so little of that river that they considered putting it underground."

Impressed with Olsen Design & Development's design philosophy, which is closely aligned with New Urbanism, at the home show where Fairview Addition was first revealed I wrote a check to reserve two lots.

With some tongue-in-cheek caveats, as I noted in the blog post.

Having drunk way too much whiskey, consumed too many drugs, and gotten way too little sleep in the days prior to visiting the Home Show, I bizarrely found myself writing a check to Amerititle for a deposit that reserves the right to purchase two lots at Fairview Addition.

I'm saying this to bolster my already-solid case for backing out of the deal if Laurel and I change our minds; the Design Reservation form says "Because of the early stages of this Development either party may withdraw from this Design Reservation for any reason by requesting such termination in Salem, Oregon where funds will be held."

We aren't ready to move from our non-easy-care ten acres in rural south Salem yet, as noted in my first post about Olsen Development. But I also really liked the idea of getting in on the ground floor, so to speak, of Fairview Addition.

A few days ago Eric Olsen emailed us and asked if we'd like to have a look at the development, including our two lots. Replying, sure, that very afternoon we met Eric at Fairview -- wisely making sure to bring some sturdy shoes.

Because even though tall blackberries and other brush have been cleared from the area on the top left of the development map above, berry vines are still lying on the ground. We could easily walk over them, though, to the two lots we'd reserved adjacent to The Woods.

Eric told us that some things have changed, but there was still a chance that The Woods would be left in its natural state. If not, the 14 acres would be minimally developed at low density.

So that was reassuring.

My wife and I aren't certain that we want to leave our current home anytime soon. Part of what attracted us to consider Fairview Addition as a place to move to was The Woods, along with other open space on and near the Fairview property.

If, or when, we do move, Eric Olsen is our kind of developer. Low-key, easy to talk with, straightforward, environmental, clued in to the benefits of "front porch communities," his specialty.

On the Fairview Addition web page, this drawing gives a rough feel for what its first phase will look like. Pringle Road runs along the top, below the "North." A new road, Strong Road, will be a collector street for Fairview Addition, extending through the rest of Fairview, I believe.

I'm pretty sure "our" lots are in the bottom left. You can see that The Woods' 14 acres wraps around two sides of the corner lot, as also shown in the other map. The street in front of the lots ends in a cul-de-sac. No garages would face the street, just front porches.

Narrow alley ways along the back of Fairview Addition homes is where the owners' cars would go and be parked. Nice. Autos deemphasized; walking and biking emphasized: one of the tenets of New Urbanism.

Olsen told us that "tiny houses" of 450 square feet will be built on Fairview Addition green spaces. Not in a cluster, but one here, one there. I wasn't aware that the City of Salem was allowing tiny houses. It's great that Fairview Addition will have some.

(I got excited about living in a tiny house until my wife said, "You're going to be there by yourself. Plus, you wouldn't even be able to fit your books into one." Good points. Guess I'll pass on that idea.)

All in all, we came away impressed with what Eric Olsen is planning for Fairview Addition.

Salem isn't known for cutting-edge urban design, to put it mildly. Traditional subdivisions are the norm for this town. It's like Salem is stuck in the 1950's and '60s when it comes to new development.

Two or three car garages facing the street. Little sense of neighborliness, walkability, or sense of community. Olsen is trying to break that pattern, bringing together the best of older Salem neighborhoods (which also have front porches and alleys) with modern construction techniques.

My wife and I aren't wild about the unadorned Craftsman home style. Fortunately, Olsen told us that his company is amenable to customizing their standard designs. In fact, he said, most of the early Fairview Addition lot purchasers are wanting to do just that.

We talked a bit with him about how, if we built on the two lots we've put a deposit down on, it would make sense to have the main living area face The Woods, rather than the street. Which raised the question of what would face the street. Bedrooms? Kitchen? Unconventional, but possible.

So... we've got to do more pondering about what we want to do, house-wise. It's good to know, though, that Fairview Addition is looking like the cool development that I first thought it would be.

Quite a few praised Davis for taking the Oregonian's editorial board to task in calling for Kitzhaber to resign before investigations into possible wrongdoing by he and his fiancee, Cylvia Hayes, had concluded.

However, a lot of comments echoed my feeling -- that the Statesman Journal failed to do any original investigative reporting of its own on this scandal, so it shouldn't be criticizing the Pulitzer Prize-winning Oregonian for kicking the SJ's butt both in the news and editorial sections.

Below is a selection of comments that resonated with me. Naturally, one is my own. I particularly liked the first one (a combination of two separate comments submitted by Mulrooney).

It is indeed strange that Michael Davis felt the need to editorialize that another newspaper's editorializing was inappropriate. Isn't the purpose of opinion pages to express opinions? Are we supposed to only read one paper's editorial page, because it has a godly sense of What Truly Should Be?

The Oregonian editors opined that Kitzhaber should resign. Nobody was forced to agree with them. But almost instantly, the Democratic leaders in the Oregon legislature agreed with the generally right-leaning Oregonian editorial board.

Sure seems to show that the Oregonian was more correct in its assessment of Kitzhaber than the Statesman Journal was.

Here's the reader comments that I liked:

-----------------------------------------------------------------Sean MulrooneyYour position is that The Oregonian made an editorial charge too soon and they did that because they had won a Pulitzer before? So what should they have done instead? I mean, it looks like they were right. They have gone out on a limb to declare their position before a legal proceeding. While I'll stop short of calling that brave, I will use the outcome to determine how credible I believe they are in the future.

You have also gone out on a limb to declare that The Oregonian was blinded by accolades and had they not been, the editorial board would have gotten the story right.

As a reader of both publications, what exactly should I do with your information? That's not a rhetorical question. Should I trust you more than The Oregonian?

Also, if your beef is not with the reporting but with the opinions (I assume you are talking about editorial articles) I would be surprised to hear that more people find the editorial articles more trustworthy than the reporting. If you are trying to warn us against putting too much faith in articles that are allowed to use flowery and potentiality convincing words, then I don't know what you want me to do with your editorial.

If you are implying that we are being tricked in any fashion, I would genuinely like that to be cited and referenced. But if this is anything that smacks of "God dangit! Why are readers believing The Oregonian? I bet it's those Pulitzer Prizes." I can tell you that it never entered my mind to use that notion. I didn't even know they had any until you wrote about that.

I feel like I'm going to be ok. Thanks for trying to save me from joining a cult.

The governor had a choice: he didn't have to resign. He make that choice himself. If he was innocent of wrongdoing, he should have stated such, and not resigned. He's made no effort to even try some type of explanation. I for one, still wonder if he's having some medical issue, possibly age or stress related. He could have taken a leave of absence. In my opinion, I think he knows how the game is going to play out. I also think that Ms. Hayes was allowed to much power without oversight. Those are MY opinions. I do wonder why the SJ felt they had to lash out at the Oregonian, instead of reporting any "new" news from here in Salem. Apparently no staff here picked up on any issues. Perhaps that's because the staff has been cut so bare that we aren't really getting news here in town. Often I will find out about police activity from Portland stations way before anything is available here in town. That is a little bit nuts.

----------------------Brian HinesIt looks like executive editor Michael Davis has some Oregonian envy. As I said in a blog post today, the Statesman Journal got its journalistic butt kicked on the Kitzhaber/Hayes scandal by the Oregonian and Willamette Week.

Even though the SJ is right next to Oregon's capitol, it didn't do any original investigative reporting on this important story. And now Davis is taking the Oregonian to task for its superior news and editorial work. Huh?

As a Democrat I'm disappointed in Kitzhaber's resignation.

However, if what he and Hayes did had been done by a Republican governor and his fiancee, I'd be calling for exactly the in-depth investigative reporting and editorializing that the Oregonian did, and the Statesman Journal passed on.

The big problem here isn't the Oregonian. It is the Statesman Journal's abdication of its journalistic responsibility to hold public officials accountable. I personally experienced this when Davis killed a story that had been written by a SJ investigative reporter about misdeeds by City of Salem officials involving downtown tree removals.

That was shameful. So is this opinion piece, since it criticizes the Oregonian for being better at journalism than the Statesman Journal is.

Using Mr. Davis' logic, then he should have included former President Nixon and former Senator Packwood as victims of an over zealous press. After all, they resigned from office without being convicted. But they both suffered from the same disease: republican.

For the record I am glad they both resigned in shame.----------------------

How nice. A Saturday morning quarter back editorial supporting the disgraced soon to be former governor. What moral courage the Statesman Journal has. Where was your editorial board last week urging the Governor's retention? Why did you wait until after he resigned to show your support?----------------------Dorian Atkins

Michael Davis must be competing with Dick Hughes for the spot of apologist-in-chief for the soon-to-be ex-governor. basically, he's putting all the blame for Kitzhaber's resignation on the newspapers that broke this mess wide open and dared to ask, not demand, that the governor resign because of it while coming within an inch of absolving Kitzhaber of any wrongdoing.

And it wasn't just the Oregonian calling for his resignation. I believe there were six other papers doing the same thing, and I don't see Michael Davis skewering them for their troubles. Kitzhaber broke his trust with the Oregonian people and undermined his ability to get the job done by A) knowingly turning a blind eye to his shack-up queen's shady dealings and B) helping to cover them up, as the investigation will no doubt reveal.

And I'm not saying this without cause to do so. Already both the state and the feds have found sufficient evidence to open investigations into the both of them, something that neither the state AG nor the FBI does lightly.

All in all, this whole article reads like a journalistic temper tantrum by an executive editor who is suffering from a bout of jealousy at getting beaten to the punch on the governor. better luck next time, Michael.----------------------

Michael Davis's editorial makes as much sense as the rest of the Statesman Journal. While blaming the media is its own cottage industry, it is inaccurate here. I am certainly no fan of The Oregonian, but it, and Willamette Week did their jobs. They didn't fabricate the scandals, but uncovered them. The improprieties--from Cylvia Hayes to demanding emails be destroyed --needed to be exposed. Blaming the media for Governor Kitzhaber's downfall is like blaming Woodward and Bernstein for Richard Nixon's eventual resignation. I voted for the governor and I feel really bad about what has happened. But, please-- don't make the media the fall-guy. Maybe Mr. Davis should stick to holding court at that dairy restaurant and leave the journalism business to those that know what their jobs are all about. As it is--and I've said this before--the Statesman Journal is a pathetic newspaper. Between "The Home Page," "The Daily Download" and so on, there is precious little news actually in the paper. If I wasn't such a Luddite, I'd cancel my subscription...

Holy smokes, what a weird editorial, and I'm not talking about the lighthearted "Portland Weird" kind of weird. By the way, you publish your newspaper in Salem, correct? What reporting, if any, did your publication do about the open peddling of influence in Kitzhaber's administration? Any at all? Inquirin' minds want to know, or at least this one does.

I grew up during the Watergate era. I remember skipping some classes at a summer program in 1973 to watch the hearings. It couldn't have been more obvious that Nixon was a crook, just as it couldn't be more obvious that Kitzhaber is a crook.

The defenses of "Kitz" from Democrats today are eerily reminiscent of the Republican excuses for Nixon back then. I'm embarrassed for the writer of this very, VERY odd editorial, and for Oregon's knee-jerk Democrats.

February 15, 2015

Got to tell it like it is: The Portland Oregonian kicked the Salem Statesman Journal's butt with both its investigative reporting and editorializing on the Kitzhaber/Hayes scandal -- which has culminated in Governor Kitzhaber's resignation.

Today the executive editor of the Statesman Journal, Michael Davis, indulged in some petty journalistic sniping at the "bad girls" who run the state's biggest and meanest newspaper to the north.

But as more and more disturbing facts came out, and Kitzhaber wasn't able or willing to talk honestly and openly about them, my attitude changed.

So much so, I started to feel that even though the reporting and editorializing of the Oregonian and Willamette Week (Portland's alternative paper) irritated me in the beginning, these publications deserved a lot of credit for aggressively digging into the Kitzhaber/Hayes story.

I pondered how I'd feel if Oregon's Governor and First Lady were Republicans instead of Democrats. If it looked like they'd engaged in some sleazy stuff that could have been illegal, wouldn't I want this state's newspapers to dig into the story as deeply as possible?

Which would include opinion pieces as well as news stories. The two aren't really separate, though Davis and other newspaper editors like to pretend that they are.

Consider: the Statesman Journal published an editorial saying that Kitzhaber should stay in office until the results of an ethics investigation were revealed in March. And, as already noted, the Statesman Journal news team apparently didn't do any original investigative reporting, even though the newspaper is in Oregon's capital, just a few blocks from the capitol building.

I readily admit that my dislike of Michael Davis' "Pulitzer envy" piece also is fueled by his killing an investigative reporter's story about a tell-all report I wrote about the needless destruction of five beautiful, large, healthy downtown trees by City of Salem officials, who made a backroom deal with the U.S. Bank president.

The relevance is that with the Kitzhaber/Hayes story, the Statesman Journal also failed to stand up for the broad public interest over narrow special interests. Yes, as a Democrat, in this case I and other liberals arguably are part of the "special interest" group.

But the truth about possible wrongdoings should be actively pursued by journalists, no matter who did the seeming wrongs.

It sure looks like the Oregonian was on the right track when it aggressively dug into the Kitzhaber/Hayes story, while the Statesman Journal sat on its reportorial and editorial haunches, letting others do the investigative journalism.

Now the FBI has launched a criminal investigation into this matter, indicating that underneath all the early-on scandalous smoke there actually was some potentially illegal fire.

Given the Statesman Journal's passivity with doing investigative reporting on this and other important stories -- among which my U.S. Bank tree report was one-- almost certainly Michael Davis doesn't have to worry about his newspaper being afflicted with Pulitzer pox.

The Statesman Journal is in no danger of being awarded one so long as it chooses to be a frothy USA Today clone that cares a lot more about generating online "clicks" than pursuing solid investigative journalism.

Given the generally dismal reviews of Fifty Shades of Grey, the advice of these women to watch real porn instead makes a lot of sense.

Yeah, there's a 30 second commercial to sit through at first, but the Funny Or Die "5 Reasons" video is worth a half minute of your time. The last reason, support independent cinema, is compelling by itself.

The full story, though, hasn't been told. Until now, where we learn why the owls are so pissed-off at people.

Today I received the following tale from someone who wants to remain anonymous. She, he, she/he, or it wants to be known only as Tsu Mei.

Which is an apt name, given how many attorneys are on the payroll of Salem Hospital and the City of Salem -- the two Evil Forces who feature prominently in this tale.

(The identity of the "Queen" is left to your imagination, but if you imagine Mayor Anna Peterson or City Manager Linda Norris, you're imagining like me.)

Enjoy.------------------------------------

A True Story About a Blind School,an Owl and a Cos-Play Surgeon

by Tsu Mei

It has been reported that the incidents of the barred owls’ aggressive behavior was prompted by an earlier chance of happenings. A pseudo-avian expert has posited that the pair previously resided near Salem Hospital, in the trees on the estate of the defunct Blind School.

They lived in relative peace, undisturbed by the comings and goings of slower walking people who took no notice of them. They in fact lived in a kind of Eden, with nearby trees overpopulated with non-native eastern gray squirrels*, whose boisterous merrymaking provided them with continuous sustenance.

(*The non-native eastern gray squirrels had already displaced the native Great Gray squirrels by ganging up on them in large numbers and attacking their nests, but that’s a story for another time.)

Abruptly the owls' paradise was shattered by the arrival of men in brightly colored hard hats, who rushed around bent on a mission. Somehow they were able to crawl into and become one with huge, destructive machines sent by the Queen to gnaw huge chunks of earth, devastate the native trees, and haul them away, leaving them nowhere to go, but to flee.

It seems that taxes were forced on human residents by the Queen and her hospital to pay for this destruction despite protests by many of the Good Humans. So the protesting citizens had to pay taxes anyway to tear down a beloved historic building, along with its beautiful natural grounds and native species, with the City’s not-so-visionary goal of paving a new, unnecessary parking lot for the hospital.

The owl and his wife, greatly pregnant with egg/s, were forced to flee and seek shelter elsewhere. She, too heavy to fly, could not risk crossing the wide river of pavement which was High with traffic. They waited until the wee hours of the morning, when Mr. Owl could help the Mrs. toddle across the seemingly endless wide paved river, when traffic was nearly absent and they could escape injury.

Once in the safety of the park, they made their way far to the other, quieter end of the park, seeing plentiful mice, voles, squirrels both native and non-native, many smaller birds, and an occasionally feral or loose cat to catch and eat. They needed a tree to rest in for the night, and they went from tree to tree, but there was no room for them.

Finally they found a tree close to the paved pedestrian highway, for low rent. The owner, an elderly owl, said they were welcome to stay there as his long life was coming to an end. His days were numbered, his wife had passed away, and his children had scattered to foreign woods. They didn’t visit anymore.

So with assistance, Mr. Barred Owl and the elderly landlord helped the Mrs. up the tree and a nest was gathered around her, to coddle her newly released eggs.

“Where have we come, my love?” she said to her husband. "This tree is right above human traffic on the paved road through the park. And I hear from the nearby residents it is flooded with noisy groups of people as the weather improves. It will be difficult to rest but we have no choice.”

Troubled by their concerns, as well as lack of sleep, put a strain on the displaced owls. “Oh, if we could live like our ancestors and be able to feast to our hearts content on spotted owls”, they lamented. Early every morning and through the night their prime time to hunt for food was disturbed by noisy humans running right below them.

Every time they spotted a furry but juicy-inside rodent, or smaller birds, their tummies rumbled with hunger. But their prey would scatter and hide with the sudden approach of humans running on the smaller black highway. The owls were cranky. Night storms of strong southwest winds and heavy rains made hunting in the open space even more difficult.

Then... one morning, they spotted a runner with a bright stocking cap, the same color as the hard-hat destroyers wore.

Mr. Owl, being wise but desperate, thought to himself “I will singularly attack this lone threat so that he will never return again to tear down these trees.”

The owl did not, of course, know the runner was a locally well-known colorful surgeon with privileges at the local hospital. So the vengeful owl swooped on the unsuspecting doctor’s stocking hat and, as hard as he could, poked his talons through the stocking cap and deep into the man’s skull.

The man grabbed his head, noticing his hat was gone. The stabbing pain made him scared, as he thought he was suffering an embolism.

He ran round in circles screaming and eventually gathered his wits (well, half his wits) and ran to a friend’s home for examination and consultation. (Not to the hospital which was much closer and where he worked, so some may suspect he really may not have had all of his wits).

The Owl proudly proclaimed that his attack had rid the forest of the ugly-hatted men forever. He and Mrs. Owl had a lovely night, feasting upon local voles and smaller birds for a tasty dinner to fortify their growing brood.

But the stricken doctor contacted the media. Dressed in his super-hero Underoos complete with cape, he retold his story. But he stayed away from running on the same path near nightfall and before sunrise.

Within the next few days, other runners were befelled by the same experience, running the black highway in the dark after sunset or pre-dawn, finding themselves the victims of the marauding barred owl, protecting his territory and his growing family. Stocking hats were ripped off and in one case, one with no hat but a bald head was attacked all the same.

Soon it became known all over the city, and indeed the nation and beyond, that bad things befell those who dared tromp the black path post-sunset or pre-dawn. Signs were put up by the City, warning people. But these weren't clearly visible for hapless runners to read and more were attacked.

Finally, Rachel Maddow came to the rescue with a clear iconic sign. She gave it to the City and residents to use to warn humans to be careful when entering the Owl Attack Zone.

The Caped Surgeon garnered lots of publicity and the media celebrated by offering a “Name The Owl” contest that also was gleefully was reported by the media. The online naming contest was announced far and wide but closed earlier than it was supposed to, so everyone didn’t get to vote and participate in the diversion.

The media latched on to the juicer parts of the happening, ignoring warnings by the Audubon Society that the owls were not native to the region and could decimate native species. They didn’t care because they had national media and a famous funny looking doctor and a Name the Owl contest!

The barred owls were finally left blissfully alone, raising their new hatchlings and proceeding to do what they do best, attack smaller birds and ever-seek the nesting grounds of spotted owls to endanger.

The caped and costumed doctor only ran during non-hunting hours and continued to be celebrated as a victim, but it didn’t matter as long as he got publicity. So, he lived happily ever after (until the next media opportunity).

The City of Salem and Salem Hospital got to destroy the Historic House of the Blind and all the green things and trees around it, and taxed the protesting citizens to pave it with black, so that wild animals, native or not, would never bother it again.

February 10, 2015

I don't know how to describe my relationship with the city I've lived in or near for over 37 years.

Me and Salem, Oregon -- we've never split up, but I've come damn close many times, when this town's aggravating shortcomings make me think "I've got to get out of this place."

Obviously something is keeping me here. And something is pushing me away. The Keep power just has been stronger than the Away power. So far.

But when I try to look through the eyes of people and businesses who aren't already here, who don't have the attachments of long-time residents, I realize how tough a sell relocating to Salem can be, especially when more attractive alternatives are nearby to the north and south of us.

Portland. Corvallis. Eugene.

My current What's wrong musings are reflected in a book I'm reading, "The End of the Suburbs." It persuasively argues that, for many reasons, the lure of living or working in car-centered development far from a city center is rapidly diminishing for Americans.

Youngish millennials and aging baby boomers like me, we're both looking for something different than a subdivision full of single-family homes where you have to drive just about everywhere you want to go.

Leaders in many other cities across the United States have realized this clear fact: mixed-use urban neighborhoods where you can walk or bike to stores, entertainment, night spots, restaurants, and such are rapidly increasing in popularity, while strip-mall and traditional subdivision-filled places like Salem are viewed as blah places to avoid.

Unfortunately, the current leadership at Salem's City Hall is still stuck in a Back to the 1950's mentality. I wrote about this in one of my Strange Up Salem columns, "Up to the present, Salem."

Imagine you’re a business owner, family, or individual thinking about relocating to Oregon. You’re looking for a with-it city that’s committed to creative, cutting-edge policies, a town focused on improving quality of life and promoting vitality by embracing positive trends instead of resisting them.

These days standing still isn’t an option.

The times always have been a’changing, but now changes are accelerating. Anyone — city, corporation, citizen — who doesn’t recognize how important it is to adjust to new realities will be left behind.

Unfortunately, living in Salem feels like being stuck in quicksand while watching everyone around you run happily by. This town makes a habit of being the last in western Oregon to get the memo about where the world is heading.

Ordering a folding bike from Eugene's Bike Friday store has made me more aware of how this is sadly true when it comes to getting around Salem on two non-motorized wheels.

Bike Friday is on busy West 11th Street. But right behind it is one of Eugene's dedicated multi-use paths, which can be used by bikers, walkers, skateboarders, skaters, and others who choose to get out of a car and use alternative ways of moving.

I did my bike test-riding on Bike Friday's expansive parking area that's shared with several other businesses. But when our dog bugged me to go for a walk, I took a break from looking at folding bikes. Here we are on the bike path behind the Bike Friday store.

Smooth concrete. Nicely wide. Nothing like this in Salem, so far as I know. And this is just one of several dedicated multi-use paths in Eugene. I was told that heading in the direction Zu Zu is looking takes one to downtown.

Heading in this direction, my Bike Friday sales guy said, leads six miles or so to a nature/wildlife refuge, with more trails. Again, nothing like this in Salem proper, in the middle of the city. Even at Salem's Minto Brown Island Park, where I bike several times a week, the asphalt trails are much inferior to this.

One of the reasons I'm getting a folding bike is so I can throw it into my Mini Cooper, park somewhere near downtown, and explore Salem by bicycle -- something I haven't done much of, living as we do in rural south Salem since 1990.

I've started to imagine riding into and through downtown from south Liberty Road and Commercial Street. As I drive along now, I've been paying attention to how many people bike and walk. Very few, even on the rainless warm (for winter) days we've been having recently.

A big part of the reason is Salem's sucky bicycle path infrastructure. Liberty and Commercial are main "collector" streets heading to downtown. But they clearly weren't designed to collect bicyclists. At least, not those who want to bike pleasantly and safely to or from Salem's urban core.

In some places there isn't even a marked bike lane, just a sidewalk. Then, on the edge of downtown a sign declaring the area to be a pedestrian safety zone pops up. No mention about it being a bicycling safety zone.

For good reason, because downtown Salem is a nightmarish place to ride a bike. And I haven't even attempted that yet, just imagined doing it.

No bike lanes. Very little room between parked cars and three lanes of rapidly moving traffic. A prohibition against riding on the sidewalk.

I rarely see bicyclists in downtown Salem. Just occasional brave riders, lycra-clad, young, fit, mostly male, the 1% or less of the population in the "strong and fearless" bicycling group that much of Salem's street system is (poorly) designed for.

I've heard a story about an avid highly-experienced cyclist who sold her bike after she moved to Salem because she discovered that it was too dangerous to ride here.

This isn't only a problem for bicyclists of all ages.

It is a problem for the quality of life that can be enjoyed by Salemians of all ages. Nobody's idea of a good time is to drive along crowded streets bordered by sterile strip malls where few people are out and about, walking or biking, because the only practical way to get around is by car.

When my wife and I look into possible places to live after our ten non-easy-care acres get to be too much for our senior citizen-selves to maintain, the ready availability of multi-use paths for walking/biking to shopping and stores is high on our list of "must have's."

And Salem doesn't have it. If we stay here, it won't be for that reason.

Something needs to change, or Salem is going to be left even further behind in the competition for people and businesses who don't want to be in a town with an archaic autocentric suburban sprawl approach to urban planning.

February 09, 2015

Ha! I should be a marijuana researcher for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Over four years ago I blogged, "Marijuana users can drive just fine -- vote yes on Prop 19."

I learned many things during my college years (1966-71) at San Jose State University. One was that heavy marijuana users, a.k.a. "stoners," could drive just fine while under the influence.

I can personally testify to this. Oh, man, I sure can.

...How do I know? I'm alive.

And I never even got into any sort of auto or motorcycle accident while driving around the San Francisco Bay Area in various states of psychedelicized consciousness for the better part of two years during the most intense period of my getting high in college phase.

Me and my friends would zip up to "the City" in my 57' VW bug with smoke pouring out of the windows. Ditto when we'd drive over curving roads in the Santa Cruz mountains in the middle of the night.

I'd much rather be out on the road with people who have imbibed marijuana than with alcohol drinkers. If legalizing marijuana in California leads to more stoners and fewer drinkers, this will make the streets safer, not more dangerous.

Now a NHTSA study has proven what my personal experience showed. Marijuana users are no more likely to have a car crash, while those who drink alcohol and drive are seven times more likely.

The Washington Post reported on the study in "Stoned drivers are a lot safer than drunk ones, new federal data show."

A new study from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration finds that drivers who use marijuana are at a significantly lower risk for a crash than drivers who use alcohol. And after adjusting for age, gender, race and alcohol use, drivers who tested positive for marijuana were no more likely to crash than [those] who had not used any drugs or alcohol prior to driving.

Hopefully Governor Kitzhaber and others who are calling for Oregon to establish a test for "stoned driving" will take this study to heart. When Oregon voters legalized recreational marijuana last year via Measure 91, impaired driving laws were unchanged.

Kitzhaber also wants OLCC and lawmakers to show how a regulated market will reduce the black market for recreational marijuana, and what can be done to devise a test — comparable to a breath test for alcohol — for determining whether a driver is under the influence of marijuana.

The problem is that marijuana is very different from alcohol. The NHTSA study shows that using marijuana doesn't impair driving like alcohol does. Further, even if a test finds that marijuana is in a person's body, this doesn't mean that he or she is "under the influence" of pot.

As the Washington Post story says:

There are a whole host of factors why detectable drug presence doesn't indicate impairment the way it does with alcohol.

"Most psychoactive drugs are chemically complex molecules, whose absorption, action, and elimination from the body are difficult to predict," the report authors write, "and considerable differences exist between individuals with regard to the rates with which these processes occur. Alcohol, in comparison, is more predictable."

Several states have passed laws attempting to define "marijuana-impaired driving" similarly to drunk driving. Colorado, for instance, sets a blood THC threshold of 0.5 nanograms per milliliter. But that number tells us next to nothing about whether a person is impaired or fit to drive. The implication is that these states are locking up people who are perfectly sober.

So like I've said before, the Governor and Oregon legislature should stifle any impulse to modify Measure 91 before it even has been implemented. Especially when it comes to establishing a test for whether someone who is driving has marijuana in his or her system.

The NHTSA study shows that this really doesn't matter, safety-wise. In fact, Oregon's roads would be a lot safer if everybody who now drinks and drives instead got stoned and drives.

Sure, ideally both alcohol-users and marijuana-imbibers would refrain from driving. But this isn't going to happen.

Given this reality, drinking and driving should be discouraged, while using marijuana and driving should be tolerated -- since marijuana use doesn't increase the chance of getting in an accident, while alcohol use does.

February 07, 2015

Had to put those scare quotes around scandal in the title of this post, because I really don't know how much to make of all the brouhaha swirling around Oregon's Governor and "First Lady" (more quotes -- they're engaged but not married, which adds to the intrigue).

My knee-jerk reaction, being a liberal/progressive who is a strong supporter of Kitzhaber, was that the Portland Oregonian's editorial calling for him to resign was a bunch of baloney. As is the outrage being expressed by Republicans in this state, including the guy Kitzhaber beat last November, Dennis Richardson.

But it bothers me when conservatives excuse stuff done by a right-wing politician that they'd freak out over if a leftie did the same thing.

He claimed that he didn't much care about public opinion. He just acted according to his heart, decisively and without backing down from criticism. Yet when Obama issues executive orders in a similar fashion, cries of Imperial Presidency! ring out from the GOP.

So I'm trying to avoid falling into the same psychological trap: ignoring facts about Kitzhaber and his partner, Cylvia Hayes, that would be red meat for liberal me if our Governor and First Lady were Republicans, rather than Democrats.

At the moment I'm in a nether zone, unsure whether there is anything substantial behind the allegations of wrongdoing. For sure, this is a mini-scandal in comparison to what's gone on in other states and Washington, D.C.

Being an avid fan of House of Cards, a Netflix series about Washington politics, it's clear that Kitzhaber and Hayes are the immoral equivalent of T-Ball baseball players compared to the Big League shenanigans of Frank Underwood and his equally sleazy wife.

I just read through the latest breathless revelations posted by Willamette Week's Nigel Jaquiss, a top-notch investigative reporter. It's just tough for me to find much, if anything, that warrants Kitzhaber's resignation.

Yes, Hayes acts in ways that suggests she has a healthy ego, desire for power, and ambitions to change the world while also benefitting herself. Which describes just about every person in high political office. Along with, often, their spouse.

it seems to me that Governor Kitzhaber mostly is being charged with guilt-by-association, due to his obvious closeness to Cylvia Hayes.

However, his now-fiancee didn't tell him about a spurious marriage to a man wanting a green card to stay in this country, nor her involvement with a planned marijuana grow that went awry. So I'd find it easy to believe that much of what Hayes did as First Lady passed under his gubernatorial radar.

Not all, but much of it.

Go Local PDX has reported that one of the supposed scandals, Hayes' lobbying for clean energy after getting a $118,000 fellowship, actually was on the up-and-up. So there goes one reason for outrage.

Legislators hire fiancees, spouses or other family members as their legislative aides. Current legislators or past officials are hired by colleges, community colleges, nonprofits and businesses because of their connections. After politicians are elected, they often hire their campaign workers for government positions.

Those realities do not excuse any missteps by Hayes or Kitzhaber, whether intentional or inadvertent. But it would be wrong for Oregon to excoriate the first couple for behaviors that were deemed acceptable for others.

Good points.

Let's see how the Oregon Ethics Commission rules on this issue next March. Let's not make premature judgements based on incomplete information. Let's remember that a few editorial board members at the Oregonian calling for Kitzhaber to resign are just that -- a few individuals.

February 05, 2015

Today the family dog and I drove to Eugene, a hour from our rural south Salem home, to see the folding bikes made by Bike Friday.

Yes, right here in the good old U.S.A.

In fact, in the same building as the showroom. Bike Friday has a pleasing industrial-chic vibe. Nothing fancy about the place, aside from the wonderfully well-crafted bicycles.

Tip to those who visit in person: pay more attention to the map on the Bike Friday Visit our showroom page than I did. The 3364 W. 11th Ave. address isn't right on that street. Bike Friday is in back of some other buildings. I drove past twice before locating it.

After walking in, I had one of my best sales experiences ever. Jeff Strehl-Roberts, the guy who showed the bikes to me, was terrific to work with. (Here he's telling me about a new cargo bike.)

I never felt like I was being sold anything. It was a lot like an Apple Store experience. Jeff just explained the features of the various models and answered my questions. The Bike Friday bikes sell themselves, as excellent products do.

During the week after I decided a folding bike had to come into my life, I spent a lot of time researching them on the Internet. Believe me, a lot. I kept changing my mind between various brands: Brompton, Tern, Montague, and several others.

What caused me to head down I-5 to Bike Friday was, first, that one of the oft-mentioned quality brands on folding bike discussion groups was close by here in Oregon. Folding bike retail dealers aren't very common. To find one that also makes the bike they sell -- sweet!

Secondly, while I had been tilting toward a Brompton, an undeniably impressive folding bike brand, the more I learned about Brompton's six-speed shifting mechanism, the less I liked the look of it. Two levers on the handlebars, each of which had to be moved in mysterious ways to cause the six speeds to manifest.

Seemed clunky to me. Out of place for a $2,000 bike. Hey, if I'm going to spend as much money as the VW Beetle my mother bought back in 1957, I'd like to get a bike with a 21st century vibe to it.

Which I feel like I did.

After test-riding several Bike Friday models in the roomy adjacent parking area, I realized that I preferred 20 inch wheels to the 16 inch'ers that are often wrongly derided as "clown car" wheels.

Bikes with either set of wheels felt great as I rode around. It just seemed like the 20 inch wheels had a bit more solid feel to them. And way more responsive when turning than the full-size wheels on my mountain bike.

I was instantly sold on the Carbon Drive belt that was on the Bike Friday Silk shown in the photo above. Goodbye to a clunky chain, and the need to lubricate, clean, and adjust one. Jeff and I then talked quite a bit about shifting options.

The question was how many gears, and how they should be shifted. I've become a big fan of the 8-speed internal hub with a twist handlebar shifter on my outdoor elliptical bike, the StreetStrider. The Silk I rode had a similar 14 speed hub, which seemed like overkill for the riding I'd be doing.

I was about to sign up for an 11-speed, until Jeff and I talked more about the NuVinci continuously variable hub. No gears at all. Well, an infinity of them, so to speak. I'd get a twist shifter without the discrete gears. And it was less expensive than an 11-speed internal hub.

Sold!

Jeff led me through an array of other choices, made less dizzying because the standard Silk setup was pretty much what I wanted and needed.

All Bike Friday bikes are made to order for a customer.

My height and weight were dutifully recorded. As was the distance from my crotch to the floor -- measured in a pleasingly non-genital approaching manner, through the use of a thin book I held between my legs with, um, just the right amount of pressure on the sensitive area, while Jeff measured the distance between the book spine and the floor.

The showroom had lots of different models, in various colors. That made it easier to choose orange for my bike, the color in the right foreground above. Seemed energetic and bright. Plus, I was wearing an orange jacket today.

It's going to take until around April 10 to construct my bike. Two months of waiting. I'm glad I visited the Bike Friday store when I did, since I suspect that more orders will come in as spring and summer approach.

After Jeff finished up the ordering process, he asked if I wanted to take a 15-minute tour of the "factory." I sure did. Zu Zu, our dog, was put back in the car. She was inside dog-friendly Bike Friday for most of the time I was there, wandering around god-knows-where.

(Well, I'm pretty sure I know one place she went, the employee break room. Zu Zu loves people and food. People with food, even better.)

One of our first tour stops was a very-well-traveled early Bike Friday bike that a man had taken to an amazing number of places around the world.

It is still in good shape, which makes me confident that my bike will be able to ride on smooth pavement a few miles to a coffeehouse, where I'll sip a latte at an outdoor table and try to look like someone who could bike all over the planet.

This is one of the first steps in the production process. The bags on the right are filled with components for special-ordered bikes that will be added to the frames at a later step. Seeing how many there were helped me understand why my bike would take eight weeks to make.

Here somebody is doing something-or-other that requires welding. Jeff explained many details during my tour, but I've already forgotten most of them. I do distinctly remember the most important thing: everybody working at Bike Friday appeared happy, competent, and good at their job.

I'm not a gung-ho Made in America guy. If another country makes a product better than we can here, hey, I'm pleased to buy it. (I love my British Mini Cooper.) But I really enjoyed buying a bike made in Oregon.

Jeff told me that 99% of bicycles, or more, are made outside of the United States. Eugene, however, has a thriving bike industry, which is great.

Here are folding bikes ready to be shipped off.

Bike Friday sells all over the world. They give a welcome discount to Oregonians, 13%. That brought the price of my Silk down from $2,592 to a "mere" $2,346 -- including disc brakes, upgraded tires and handlebars, fenders, kickstand, that special orange color, a Brompton front bag bracket, and a few other options.

Yeah, its a lot of money.

But having researched folding bikes quite extensively, Bike Friday offers a great product at a fair cost. I configured a Brompton. It came to $2,368. And that's with a regular chain drive, plus a rather clumsy six-speed shifter.

Some 16-inch Bike Friday models fold about as small as a Brompton. But since I'm not interested in ultimate small-size foldability, I'll be happier with the 20-inch Silk. Jeff demonstrated how it folds, which ends up in a package that isn't a whole lot bigger than a 16-inch bike.

Bottom line: take a long hard look at Bike Friday if you're in the market for a folding bike. Currently their web site gives off an erroneous vibe -- that their bikes are aimed at bicycle geeks with lots of technical knowledge and riding experience.

I have neither. Yet the couple of hours I spent at Bike Friday today were highly enjoyable.

I never felt talked-down to, or pressured in any way. Jeff assured me that their support staff are as competent as their sales people, answering phone calls at any time of the night if a Bike Friday owner anywhere in the world has a pressing problem.

[Vitally important update: Jeff, my Bike Friday man, has let me know about their referral program. Mention me -- ME, ME, ME! -- if you buy a bike from them, and I'll get $50, or a $75 in store credit. So if you read this blog post and end up buying a Bike Friday folding bike, tell them "Brian Hines sent me."]

When my bike is in my hands, I'll report on how I like it. For now, I can report that I really like the Bike Friday buying experience. Here's a video about the Silk model that I bought.

February 03, 2015

After attending last night's Listening Tour meeting in West Salem of the OLCC (Oregon Liquor Control Commission), which is charged with implementing legal recreational marijuana in this state, I came away with a very strong feeling that, yes indeed, the times really are a'changing when it comes to pot.

Several hundred people attended the meeting. I got there fifteen minutes early, and the area set aside for seating was already filled up. Sliding partitions had to be opened up to accommodate the larger-than-expected crowd.

There was an interesting mix of folks who had come to express their views about how the provisions of Measure 91, the marijuana legalization initiative that passed with 56% of the vote last November, should be implemented by the OLCC.

As I walked to the building from the parking lot, I encountered a guy who was talking to anybody within earshot about how many children died, if I recall correctly, from alcohol poisoning last year. Thirty-six, I believe it was.

Then he said, "And how many died from a marijuana overdose?" I knew the answer! "Zero," I told him. "Right!" he approvingly said to me.

This set the tone for the two-hour meeting.

I sort of expected that there would be some anti-marijuana types there who wanted to urge tight control over the Demon Weed. Well, if this was the case, they kept their mouths shut. Everybody who spoke from the audience was in favor of legal weed. The only debate was how to go about it.

The chair of the OLCC, Rob Patridge, kicked off the meeting with a slide show about the provisions of Measure 91. He readily admitted that he had opposed its passage, but now was committed to making marijuana legalization work.

He sounded sincere.

Still, the Oregon Legislature is in session, and several bills have been introduced that would undermine Measure 91. Governor Kitzhaber, irritatingly, is pushing for changes even before this state has gotten to see how well the carefully written and researched citizen initiative will work.

Patridge repeatedly said that the meeting wasn't about re-litigating Measure 91. Unless the legislature changes the statutory provisions of Measure 91, the OLCC has to work within its boundaries.

Two other OLCC commissioners attended the meeting, Marvin D. Révoal and Michael Harper (I didn't recall this at the time, but his bio says that Harper played for the Portland Trailblazers in the early 1980s). Révoal was outgoing and outspoken, uttering some crowd-pleasing lines about legal weed early on:

"This is our Silicon Valley! This could be our Napa Valley!"

I believe it. There were plenty of well-dressed men and women in the audience who looked more like marijuana entrepreneurs than typical legal pot advocates (assuming there is such a thing, "typical").

Indeed, a concern expressed by several people was that big-moneyed out-of-state corporate types would come to Oregon and try to dominate the production and sale of marijuana. Clearly most in the room agreed with them, wanting the marijuana industry in this state to be much more akin to craft beer than Budweiser.

Smartly, the OLCC has hired a professional facilitator to oversee the audience participation portion of these Listening Tour meetings. Salem's was the third, the first two being in eastern Oregon.

She did a great job. This was the best organized meeting of this sort I've ever been to.

At a welcome table, attendees were given small round stickers that they could afix next to a variety of topics listed on easel boards inside the meeting room. The topics that got the most stickers were brought up first during the audience participation session that took up most of the two hours.

Each person was given green, yellow, and red cards.

These were held up to indicate agreement, uncertainty, or disagreement about a statement regarding how to implement Measure 91. The moderator would look around the room, say something like "Most people agree with this," then ask various people to explain their "vote."

Great way to run the meeting. The OLCC commissioners would chime in from time to time with questions and comments of their own, but mostly the moderator served as the neutral person trying to gauge the tenor of the audience on key issues.

The most unanimous vote was on the need for testing of marijuana products, particularly for purity. I don't think anybody disagreed that this needed to be done. (It already is, I'm pretty sure, for medical marijuana.)

Clapping occasionally burst out when holding up a colored card wasn't enough for the audience to register approval or disapproval of some statement. As already noted, "Don't allow out-of-staters with huge grows" got considerable applause.

As did, "Don't let local governments set grow limits."

During the concluding open mic comment period, this advice by someone to the OLCC was received warmly: "Don't think of ways to restrict; think of ways to benefit Oregon."

Something I said got considerable applause also. I held a red card up to a statement about requiring retail marijuana outlets to be located at least 1000 feet from schools. This question got a mixture of Yes, Not Sure, and No responses.

Being a "No," the moderator pointed at me and said, "Tell us why you feel this way." I said, best I recall:

I just haven't seen any compelling reasons why retail stores shouldn't be near schools. My daughter, who is 43, now admits to me that when she was in elementary school, she stopped by a 7-11 on her way home to buy candy. Beer and wine were sold in that store! Somehow she survived. This seems to me to be part of a Demon Weed mentality that doesn't make any sense -- the idea that marijuana is some sort of Death Ray that can zap children if they get within 1000 feet of it.

That Death Ray thought just popped into my head as I was talking. It got laughs and applause.

The next audience member called on by the moderator looked at me and said, "I agree with that guy." But then went on to explain that his worry is about the smell of marijuana emanating from a store and entering children's noses as they walk by.

OK. However, I've walked by several medical marijuana dispensaries and never smelled anything. Plus, it isn't true that you can get high by just smelling marijuana. Unfortunately.

One of the OLCC chairman's slides struck me intensely when it popped onto the screen at the end of his opening presentation. This is where you go to learn how Oregon state government is implementing the legalization of recreational marijuana in this state.

My feelings, in part, related to a previous blog post of mine, "Oregonians, please legalize marijuana to honor... ME!" Here's how the post started off:

Hey, so maybe the title of this blog post sounds self-centered to you. What do you expect, dude? The author, moi, is a 65 year-old baby boomer. I'm proudly part of the Me Generation.

So naturally I see everything as revolving around the Flower Child center of the universe that we baby boomers brought into being back in the 60's.

Me especially, since I was in college at San Jose State University from 1966 to 1971.

You know, the Bay Area not-Stanford and not-UC Berkeley. The ugly duckling to the south. Which for me and my friends was just a short 57' VW bug smoke-filled drive away from San Francisco: Haight-Ashbury, Winterland, Fillmore, all things psychedelically bright and beautiful.

We weren't smoking cigarettes.

Oh no, we were the freaks, the hippies, the potheads, the stoners, who brought marijuana out of the societal shadows and made it, if not respectable, damn ubiquitous for our generation.

In a sense -- and I can understand if you'd like to make that "In a pitifully marginal sense" -- we were akin to the courageous demonstrators of the Civil Rights movement, the determined feminists of the Women's Rights movement, the brave initiators of the Gay Rights movement, the in-your-face protestors of the Anti-Vietnam War movement.

We set out to change society one toke at a time.

Whether zoning out to Cream, Jefferson Airplane, and Hendrix, or demonstrating that frisbee skills are not lessened one bit by being high (nor driving skills, in my experience), we were unknowingly laying the groundwork for what now seems to be a groundswell of support for changing this nation's marijuana laws.

And now it's happening. Colorado, Washington, Alaska, Oregon. Bit by bit, these United States are looking upon marijuana in a way that seemed impossible back in the 1960's.

Rationally. Non-fearfully. Scientifically. The meeting last night brought this home in a way that I hadn't felt before I sat with hundreds of other people to talk about legal marijuana.

February 02, 2015

You won't read about this in our increasingly useless Statesman Journal newspaper, but the OLCC (Oregon Liquor Control Commission) is holding a Listening Tour meeting today in West Salem where people can express their views about how the recent legalization of recreational marijuana should be handled.

This morning I emailed the OLCC to confirm that the meeting was happening. An OLCC staffer just confirmed that it is.

I have no idea why the Statesman Journal failed to cover this. Maybe because the paper editorialized against the passage of Measure 91?

I'm planning to attend the meeting, in part because I'm irked about how the Governor and some state legislators are trying to undermine Measure 91 before it even has been implemented. These are some main points I want to make during my speaking time:

(1) Leave Measure 91 alone. It was approved by 56% of voters last November. Implement the initiative as it was written, crafting regulations in accord with the intent of the Oregonians who voted "yes."

(2) Those who opposed marijuana legalization, like Governor Kitzhaber, shouldn't be able to weaken Measure 91 now. You lost. The voters spoke. Deal with it.

(3) The current medical marijuana sales and production system should be kept separate from the soon-to-be recreational marijuana system. One reason is that a new President, or new U.S. Attorney General, could crack down on recreational use under the current misguided federal anti-pot laws, while this would be more difficult to do with medical marijuana.